If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Within a month, almost any Mississippian will be able to openly carry a gun in public places with or without a permit.

This has some law enforcement officials concerned.

One Wednesday, several agencies gathered at the Old Capitol Museum to discuss and prepare for the bill to take effect on July 1, asking questions and mulling implications.

. . . speakers from the Attorney General's Office clarified law enforcement boundaries under the new law.

"I think a lot of cases they are not pleased with some of the answers because generally speaking what they've been told is just because someone is carrying a gun doesn't mean you can go up to them and confront them and demand to see their gun and so forth," Ward said. "You could ask questions, but a person isn't under any obligation to comply unless an officer believes a crime is being committed."

Confusion still here!

A-G Hood says law is "clear as mud"!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even some reporters confuse OC and CC! OC is prohibited at schools but Enhanced Permit CC is allowed! Then, some colleges and universities say that they don't allow guns at all! Some sheriffs will not allow OC in county courthouses and some will! What part of "will not be infringed" do these people NOT understand?

Opinion from AG

Well, as I said before essentially, any owner of any property, or proprietor of property can prevent anyone from coming in or on said property for any reason they choose. If they tell you that you can't, and you do anyway, then you can be arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

But as to the AG's new opinion (draft), I find it interesting, to say the least. It does appear to tell LEOS to pretty much leave open carriers alone.

Here is a copy of the draft version of the AG's opinion. The opinion was initiated by a letter from the Tate county Sheriff.

On another forum, a member was in attendance and here is an excerpt from his personal observations:

I felt the whole tone in the atmosphere was that law enforcement in general was disappointed and some even angry over the bill and Jim Hood's take on it. Let me say this in Jim Hood's defense though. He is only reading what the legislature did and telling us what he think it says and how it impacts us.

I am disappointed in law enforcement in general because most wanted as many powers as they could get to stop you, question you and possibly take your gun, at least temporarily without you having the ability to tell them to "take a hike."

I am disappointed in law enforcement because it became clear to me what I have been suspecting for a long time. That is that law enforcement people usually claim to be "pro second amendment." I am confident after the meeting and from the rumblings I have heard that most of them are really only pro-second amendment as it pertains to themselves, their families and their friends. Most of them don't want anybody else carrying a gun.

The biggest was when they were told that "no firearms" signs applied to them when off duty.

The next biggest was when the presenter said that under the regular permit a person couldn't go where alcohol was served, but nothing in the open carry law prohibited it. What he didn't say though and it didn't seem like from the reaction any of the cops knew was that it has been legal for 2 years now (lacking 2 weeks). The Enhanced Statute does not preclude a person from going to a bar with a gun on. I am not in favor of it and don't think it is a good idea, but there is nothing in the statute from 2 years ago or now, that precludes you from sitting at a bar, while drinking with a gun on!

The next biggest was when they were told they could ask somebody about a gun they had on but the person had no obligation to answer their questions or acknowledge their existence.

Otherwise, Hood said, the new law is “clear as mud” and “poorly written,” and he expects courts will be years in interpreting it.

Clear as mud. Poorly written? How much clearer can you get? And I suppose "in whole or in part" was more clear and well written? I've long thought that the government or someone is putting stupid juice in the drinking water, and this is just more evidence of it. There's nothing at all confusing about HB2, which was it's purpose, not to be confusing. They're just mad because you CAN'T confuse the meaning. Generally, not all, of those in power and law enforcement consider themselves a special class of people, not public servants doing a job for the benefit of those that elected them, or gave them the ability to appoint certain others. They typically don't get the big picture. As a result they are extremely reluctant to give up even a tiny fraction of the control and power they have back to the people. They're confused because it's always been that they get more power over the people, not the other way around. But I suppose they'll have to get used to it, for a while anyway. Unless we watch them closely, one day they'll pull a California on us, and it'll be worse than it was before.

Conflicted

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Kudos to the AG for clearing the air before the effective date.

Grape, I can't decide how I feel about the AG. He's the one who signed off on the blatantly incompetent work of one of his underlings that temporarily ended OC. This makes me question his competence and/or motivation.

On the other hand, by finally illustrating how ludicrous the old law was, he set in motion the chain of events that led to HB2 and the now-clear delineation of OC vs. CC. So in that sense I should be thanking him.

Given his current stance, I guess I should consider him a "friend." It just took a while for him to get there.

Oversimplification Alert!

Originally Posted by BuckNekkid

The next biggest was when the presenter said that under the regular permit a person couldn't go where alcohol was served, but nothing in the open carry law prohibited it. What he didn't say though and it didn't seem like from the reaction any of the cops knew was that it has been legal for 2 years now (lacking 2 weeks). The Enhanced Statute does not preclude a person from going to a bar with a gun on. I am not in favor of it and don't think it is a good idea, but there is nothing in the statute from 2 years ago or now, that precludes you from sitting at a bar, while drinking with a gun on!

1. There is no "open carry law"
2. You can CC in a restaurant that serves alcohol, as long as you're not in the bar, without the Enhanced permit. Ref 45-9-101: "any portion of an establishment, licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, that is primarily devoted to dispensing alcoholic beverages; any portion of an establishment in which beer or light wine is consumed on the premises, that is primarily devoted to such purpose". The enhanced permit allows you into the bar as well as the restaurant.

As punishment for his offense, your correspondent is hereby sentenced to live in the state with the worst education system, highest obesity rate, and the worst drivers in the U.S. If the drivers don't get him, ignorance, diabetes and congestive heart failure will. Oh, wait a minute.... :P

Grape, I can't decide how I feel about the AG. He's the one who signed off on the blatantly incompetent work of one of his underlings that temporarily ended OC. This makes me question his competence and/or motivation.

On the other hand, by finally illustrating how ludicrous the old law was, he set in motion the chain of events that led to HB2 and the now-clear delineation of OC vs. CC. So in that sense I should be thanking him.

Given his current stance, I guess I should consider him a "friend." It just took a while for him to get there.

I admit to not having first hand knowledge or history of the players.

Still is always good to convert someone from the "other side", if in fact this is what is happening here.

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

Still is always good to convert someone from the "other side", if in fact this is what is happening here.

No its not. First he went with the clearly unconstitutional interpretation. Instead he could have cited the MS constitution and written an opinion that was not clearly unconstitutional. Second, he ignored the constitution again in what he wrote this last time. According to the MS constitution OC and keeping arms can't even be regulated; he indicated the opposite. He's no friend, any credit for politicians goes to the authors/sponsors of HB2 and the senate version.

Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

Still is always good to convert someone from the "other side", if in fact this is what is happening here.

Originally Posted by Daylen

No its not. First he went with the clearly unconstitutional interpretation. Instead he could have cited the MS constitution and written an opinion that was not clearly unconstitutional. Second, he ignored the constitution again in what he wrote this last time. According to the MS constitution OC and keeping arms can't even be regulated; he indicated the opposite. He's no friend, any credit for politicians goes to the authors/sponsors of HB2 and the senate version.

Precisely why I said 'if". I submit to those on the front lines who can provide the facts.

My point was to express pleasure on seeing the improvement.

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

I noticed your use of "if" and its meaning, just offering my analysis.

As even Hood says OC is legal in MS without a permit/license, will our color change from green to orange on the first?

Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

Fantastic, I wish the politicians here would realize that open carry is the 2A, it is the very intention of the amendment to keep government inline. Asking permission, and being restricted by that same government is not the original intention of it. Good for the attorney general.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

Fantastic, I wish the politicians here would realize that open carry is the 2A, it is the very intention of the amendment to keep government inline. Asking permission, and being restricted by that same government is not the original intention of it. Good for the attorney general.

As Daylen pointed out the politicians didnt realize, they were forced to acknowledgment because of a new clarification statute

Commercial Properties (Stores) won't allow Open Carry?

Originally Posted by MSRebel54

Well, as I said before essentially, any owner of any property, or proprietor of property can prevent anyone from coming in or on said property for any reason they choose. If they tell you that you can't, and you do anyway, then you can be arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

But as to the AG's new opinion (draft), I find it interesting, to say the least. It does appear to tell LEOS to pretty much leave open carriers alone.

Here is a copy of the draft version of the AG's opinion. The opinion was initiated by a letter from the Tate county Sheriff.

If we encounter specific commercial properties that exist on the good graces of the public and have decided that no one will Open Carry on their premises I believe we should be like the Town Crier and help them spread the word. Get on Facebook and tell your friends that they are not welcome in that establishment and ask them to help to spread the word. Once their restrictive attitude begins to cost them money perhaps they will reconsider. Vote with your Feet.

a few weeks ago i was in southaven and asked a passing cop if MS was now OC and he sounded dejected as he said "yeah", i asked if they had any policies or new training and he said, the captain told us not to question people just because they are OCing. We're not allowed to ask for a permit or anything. i said, GREAT THANKS! and he drove off lol.